Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Constitution of the United States makes three references to religion. The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights says that we have the right to believe or not believe as a matter of personal conscience and, secondly, that there will be no established government religion in the United States. The only other provision is in article VI, where it expressly says there will be no religious test for public office--three simple assertions which for over 200 years have guided this Nation in dealing with religion. The statement just made by the Senator from South Dakota really tells me that he didn't tune in to the hearings that were held just a week or two ago when it came to Amy Coney Barrett. I did. I was there for all 4 days, start to finish, with maybe 10 minutes that I stepped aside. So I know what was said and who said it, and I know what the Democrats said, and I didn't believe there was one instance--not one--where any Democrat raised the issue of this nominee's religion. We took seriously what article VI says in the Constitution: There is no religious test for office. I will state that on the other side of the aisle, there were frequent references to her religion--express references to her religion. That is their right as Senators to decide how they want to handle this issue. But the suggestion that I heard from the Senator from South Dakota tells me he did not follow the hearing and he didn't listen to it. Had he done so, he wouldn't have made the statements that he just did on the floor. As a lifelong Catholic, I want to state that I have voted for Catholics to serve on every court, both the Supreme Court and other courts in the land, and I have voted against some as well. I take the admonition of the Constitution seriously. I don't take a person's religion into account when I cast a vote when it comes to a judge, nor should anyone if they follow this Constitution. One last point I would like to make that was clearly wrong: When it came to the scurrilous and disgusting attacks on the adopted children of this nominee, the Senator from Louisiana spoke up against them, and so did I on the Democratic side. They are unacceptable on either side of the aisle, and for any Senators to suggest otherwise tells me he did not listen to the hearing itself. I condemn the attack on her family, and I repeat that condemnation on the floor of the Senate today. For that Senator to ignore that fact troubles me greatly. I count him as a friend. I hope when he reads the record of the actual proceedings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he will come and clarify and correct his remarks.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Winston Churchill famously said: ``If you're going through hell, keep going.'' Persevere, don't give up. It is good advice. Here is another bit of good advice for weathering hard times: Look to a brighter future, but also study the past. Look at how others before you have triumphed over similar difficulties, and learn from their example. During these hard, pandemic times, leaders and communities--and anyone, really--would do well to study the life and accomplishments of an exceptional leader, the former mayor of Rockford, IL, John McNamara. John died on September 30 at the age of 81. As Rockford's mayor from 1981 to 1989, he helped guide Rockford through a national recession, which crippled the manufacturing industry in his city. When he took office, Rockford's jobless rate stood at 11.5 percent. Eighteen months later, it had ballooned to nearly 25 percent, the highest unemployment in the Nation. For the first time since the Great Depression, the city's population declined. The New York Times reported that Rockford was ``bleeding away its jobs and its people.'' Speaking with a Rockford Register Star reporter in 2006, John McNamara recalled those times. He said: ``People would come into my office to tell me about their situation. It was very heart-wrenching and emotional. It hit you in the gut.'' John McNamara steered Rockford through those dark years with a strong leadership style and an irrepressible, infectious sense of optimism. He believed in Rockford's people and possibilities, and he inspired others to believe in them, too. By the start of his second and final term in 1985, the city's economy was on an upswing. While part of the improvement was due to a broader, national economic recovery, much of Rockford's rebound was the result of bold decisions by McNamara to overhaul the city's government. He professionalized the mayor's office and realigned the city's finances. He worked to create opportunities for economic growth and prosperity. He made smart investments in infrastructure to create new jobs and attract new industries to Rockford and to diversify and strengthen the city's economic base. He spearheaded the resurrection of downtown Rockford. He helped to establish a local tourism bureau and an arts council. He committed public funds to turn an old Sears Roebuck building into the Rockford Museum Park, home to the Rockford Art Museum, the Discovery Center, and the Rockford Dance Company. He worked for social justice for all of his city's residents. In a city where the school district had twice faced lawsuits for racial discrimination, he made racial healing a priority. He told his children that his favorite day of the year was Martin Luther King Day; he loved the inspiration he drew from visits to African-American churches. He established a Mayors Task Force on Homelessness. He was famous for his blunt speaking style and his booming voice, which echoed throughout city hall. He was funny, with a loud laugh. In his days as mayor, he stood 6-foot-4 and weighed about 180 pounds, tops. People used to marvel that such a big laugh could come from such a thin frame. He greeted people with a big hug and a big smile. He listened. He was a Democrat who didn't believe that any political party has a monopoly on good ideas. He was elected by Democrats and Republicans, and he appointed people from both parties to serve in city committees. One of his favorite sayings was: ``If you can't make a friend, don't make an enemy.'' A Republican who served during his years as mayor, current Rockford Alderman Frank Beach said: ``John was a strong man [who] loved our community--a man of integrity, a man that put shoe leather to his convictions.'' He motivated and inspired people, and he was energetic and tireless. Rockford was John's adopted hometown. He grew up in Whiting, IN, where his folks ran a small mom-and-pop grocery. He had two sisters. In his school, he was class president. He also played football, basketball, and baseball, and he was on the bowling team. He earned a bachelor's degree from Notre Dame University and a law degree from the University of Michigan. In 1965, on a blind date, he met Barbara Runkle, a young woman from the northern suburbs of Chicago. They ate at a diner and walked around Chicago. The next day, he drove 60 miles to see her again. He made that same 60-mile drive to see Barbara every day for months until they married on June 26, 1965. John and Barbara were married for 55 years and raised six children, three daughters and three sons, including Rockford's current mayor, Tom McNamara. Shortly after their wedding, John did a tour of duty in Vietnam as a captain in U.S. Army intelligence and earned a Bronze Star. After his military service, he passed up a chance to practice law in downtown Chicago and moved to Rockford to work as an assistant public defender in Winnebago County. He said his work in steel mills and factories during college and law school pushed him toward a practice in which he could help people. He had public service in his blood. His father had served on the city council and school board in Whiting, and two of his uncles were mayors. John's own career in public office started in 1974, when he was appointed by Rockford's mayor to fill a vacancy in the city's Third Ward. He ran for reelection the following year, winning a 4-year term. He took a year off after his term ended and, a year later, announced that he would run for mayor. If you asked him what accomplishment he was most proud of as mayor, John didn't mention new buildings or economic development deals. He was proudest that he had helped the people of Rockford believe in a better future during a dark time. He was proud that he chose not to seek a third term, instead endorsing his protege, then-city administrator Charles Box, who would go on to become Rockford's first Black mayor, serving for three terms. John remained active in Rockford's civic life. He joined William Charles Investments Ltd. He also worked part-time for Rockford University; as the liberal arts college's first vice president for development, he helped save it from going under during tough times. In 2009, I was honored to nominate John to serve on a Federal Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, an independent, bipartisan panel formed to advise Congress and the U.S. Secretary of Education on making college more affordable. He just never stopped trying to help people. I will close with this story. On a chilly spring day in 1978, when John was serving on the city council, he helped save the life of a man who jumped off the State Street Bridge. John was in the Rockford Register Star building when he saw the man teetering on the bridge's railing. He took off running, but by the time he reached the bridge, the man had already jumped into the frigid Rock River. With the help of another man and a 16-year-old boy who happened to be passing by, John pulled the man out of the river. The only casualty was the new suit he was wearing, a bit of a luxury for a defense lawyer with six young children. John McNamara later told a columnist: ``I was shaking all the rest of that afternoon--not because I was cold. You just hate to see a guy get that despondent.'' That was John McNamara in a nutshell, willing to act boldly yet humbly to give someone else hope. He was a class act who led by example, and he was my friend. Loretta and I offer our condolences to John's wife Barbara, their six children--John, Kate, Dan, Mary, Nell, and Tom and their spouses--and to John and Barbara's 16 grandchildren. He loved them all deeply. He will be missed.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent. (Mrs. LOEFFLER assumed the Chair.)

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, late last night the news flash was: Senator McConnell, Republican leader of the U.S. Senate, opposes COVID-19 relief bill and informs the White House. Supposedly, it was a statement made by Senator McConnell at his Republican lunch yesterday, and it was later confirmed by four Republican Senators who attended that that is what occurred. Finally, it becomes public one of the things that has been suspected for a long time on this side of the aisle. You see, most of us have been paying close attention to the speeches by Senator McConnell to try to gauge his interest in really coming back to help the American people. We remember on March 26, when 96 to 0--96 to 0--the Senate voted for COVID relief in what was known as the CARES Act. It was a bipartisan measure responding to a national pandemic that was just starting to surface and an economy that was just starting to collapse. Many people thought at the time that that would be the end of our journey, that we would do what is necessary, and put it behind us. And so the unemployment assistance, for example, ended on July 31 of this year. The PPP--the Paycheck Protect Program--ended in the middle of August. We were wrong. The pandemic got dramatically worse, and the economy slumped even further. Millions more were out of work. Thousands were dying. More were infected. And we still are in a terrible battle now against this deadly virus. So the obvious solution was for Congress to come back and help again. The first measure was good and I think helpful, but it wasn't enough. We needed more. So Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House, 5 months ago--5 months ago--in May passed a COVID relief bill to follow on from the original bill. She sent it over to Senator McConnell 5 months ago, and he did nothing. What he said was: I want to see if I feel a sense of urgency about the need for this bill--a sense of urgency. Well, today 220,000 Americans have died. Americans are dying at a pace from this coronavirus that is unimaginable. Do you understand that the death rate from COVID in America is 2\1/2\ times the death rate in Canada? Do we realize the infection rate in the United States is five times what it is than Canada or Germany? Do we understand that with 4.5 percent of the world's population, we lead in COVID deaths than anywhere in the world? The efforts to deal with COVID-19 have failed, and the American people know it. They are tired of this way of living, with these masks, but they know if they don't, they risk their health and the safety of others. They want this economy to come back to life. They want the kids to go back to school. But we can't move forward unless we have leadership, No. 1, and that is what an election is all about; a plan, No. 2; and the resources to implement it. What are the resources that Senator McConnell believes are necessary to deal with this? When it comes to testing, $16 billion for the Nation--$16 billion. We are currently testing 1 million people a day across the United States. We should be testing 14 million people a day if we are serious about contact tracing, if we are serious about reopening the economy. So the Senator from Kentucky comes to the floor this morning and talks about the obstructionism of Nancy Pelosi. Obstructionism? Five months ago, she passed the COVID-19 relief bill and sent it to his desk, and he never once brought it to the floor for debate or a vote-- not once. He mocks it and criticizes it day after day. He is afraid of voting before the U.S. Senate. So he comes up with an elaborate procedural scheme, which we will see in just a few minutes here, that basically wants to put together his package for COVID relief, but his package is missing so many key elements that we know will not respond to this national crisis. It is the old story of a man 30 feet from shore drowning, and someone stands by the shore and tosses him a 5-foot rope. It doesn't work. It doesn't reach. It doesn't save him. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, has told us that if we don't do something, there will be a tragic result in the American economy. If we pass a bill of the magnitude suggested by Speaker Pelosi, we have a chance of recovering by the end of 2021. If we don't, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve warns us--and others, as well--that we will slump into an even worse recession, even more unemployment, and even more businesses failing. That appears to be what Senator McConnell is prepared to accept, but we are not. Those of us set to deal with the real problems and challenges for Americans realize we need more than an effort of throwing a 5-foot rope to a man drowning 30 feet from shore. That is the McConnell approach. As we take a look at the elements that are missing in the McConnell approach, they are lengthy. Virtually every State and local government in the Nation has seen a downturn in revenue because the economy contracted. We want to help these State and local governments survive to be able to overcome the need to layoff healthcare workers, teachers, firefighters, and police. That is what we believe, and that is what we include in our bill, not in the McConnell bill. Housing. There is no funding for housing or rental assistance in the McConnell bill that he brought before us. Economic stimulus. Remember the $1,200 checks? There are no direct stimulus checks in the McConnell proposal. He says that we are holding out to help the coastal elites. News flash, Senator McConnell: Coastal elites don't qualify for these checks, nor should they. Ordinary people do, and your bill doesn't help them. On unemployment, Senator McConnell's bill cuts the benefits in half-- the Federal benefits for unemployment. Then he puts in this provision-- an incredible provision--that gives large companies immunity from liability if they do not take the necessary steps to protect their employees and customers. That is a high priority. The big shots do pretty well in Senator McConnell's bill. When it comes to testing, Senator McConnell is prepared to spend $16 billion, as I mentioned earlier. The bill we support has over $57 billion for hospitals and healthcare clinics and $75 billion for testing. Nutrition. Senator McConnell says we are just trying to help the blue-State billionaires. I have news for him: They don't qualify for SNAP benefits. And there is no SNAP benefit increase in the McConnell bill. We believe there should be. People are standing in line at food banks. America can do better. Money to help the schools--we put more money into that than Senator McConnell does. There is help for the Postal Service, which has been hard-pressed by the current state of the economy. We also have the Paycheck Protection Program, which we all agree needs to be there for small businesses. I will just conclude by saying this. We have our chance now to work together on a bipartisan basis to help people who are counting on us. Senator McConnell's approach has to be rejected. It is just an effort to find some cover politically so people can go home and say: Well, I voted for something. Let's do something that makes a difference in the lives of people and helps them. Let's deal with this coronavirus directly and let's help those who are suffering from job loss and struggling to make ends meet get through this crisis themselves. That is the responsibility we face, and it is one that I think we should face honestly. I listened as my friend and colleague, Senator Thune, said that we were holding America hostage with our position on the Democratic side. We are not holding them hostage. It was Senator McConnell who refused to participate in the negotiations and still does. We have a bipartisan effort between the White House and Speaker Pelosi to solve this problem and come together again as we did in March. It is time for us to do it. The President may say he is tired of COVID, but America can't be tired of COVID. We have to face it every single day and fight it every day. The Senate and Congress should help. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. ``Idiots.'' ``Idiots.'' That is what the President called Dr. Anthony Fauci and the public health experts in the Federal Government. The President said: People are tired of COVID. I have the biggest rallies I've ever had. And we have COVID. People are saying: ``Whatever. Just leave us alone.'' They're tired of it. Then he added: People are tired of hearing Fauci and these idiots, all these idiots who got it wrong. Those are the words of the President of the United States, Donald Trump, in the midst of the worst pandemic America has seen in over a century--220,000 dead and counting. What lies ahead with this COVID epidemic, which the President is so tired of hearing about? What have the so-called ``idiots'' told us about the future of COVID-19? Here is what they have told us: More than 70,450 new coronavirus cases were reported in the United States on Friday, the highest figure since July 24, according to the New York Times database. More than 900 new deaths were recorded, and over the past week, there have been an average of 56,615 cases per day--an increase of 30 percent from the average 2 weeks earlier. Is this a political commentary, these facts? No. These are the numbers and statistics of reality--a reality which President Trump refuses to acknowledge. How are we doing when it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the world? Well, we have five times the infection rate of the nation of Germany. What is going on here? The great United States of America has five times the infection rate of Germany? Well, let's get across the ocean. Let's bring it to this side of the Atlantic. How are we doing in comparison to the nations here? Well, let's compare the United States to Canada. The COVID death rate in the United States is 2\1/2\ times the death rate in Canada. What does Justin Trudeau know about this epidemic that Donald Trump did not? He knew that it took leadership to deal with it. He knew that we had to step up as a nation and gather together all the people of this country in common purpose to beat back this virus, and he failed to do it--President Trump failed to do that. He said to the Governors ``You are on your own. Go out and find protective equipment. Find ventilators. See what you can do on the open market'' instead of using the power of the Presidency and the leadership of the Presidency to help make certain that every American had access to what they needed to stay safe. How did he do in setting standards for dealing with this deadly virus? First, he denied it was deadly. He argued it was going to go away. When it gets warm outside, it will go away. It is a hoax. You remember those statements. And do you remember that incredible press conference where the President went off on some tangent about disinfectant and Lysol? It was sickening to think that the leader of the free world would do that. How about the example set by the President. To this day, to get this President to wear a mask is a rare occurrence. And there he was, just days after being helicoptered out to Walter Reed Hospital, returning to the White House, making his triumphant balcony scene, standing before the American people and ripping off his mask just to tell them how tough he was, how lucky he was. He was really telling the American people: Don't take this mask business seriously. He can say the words, but he just mouths them. The fact that you can see his mouth is an indication that he doesn't believe it. And here we are. Fortunately, in the early stages of this pandemic, this Congress rose to the occasion. It was March 26. We called it the CARES Act. It was indeed a comprehensive effort to deal with the coronavirus, a comprehensive approach. We imagined all the possibilities, we saw the economy sinking under our feet, and we came together with a vote of 96 to nothing here in the U.S. Senate--a bipartisan vote of 96 to nothing--for a bill that we wrote together, Democrats and Republicans sitting together. It was an amazing day, and I am glad we did it, but there was one clear shortcoming. We assumed when we passed the CARES Act that, come the end of July and first part of August, this crisis would be behind us. It isn't. At the end of July, for example, the Federal supplement of unemployment insurance ran out for millions of Americans. In the first part of August, the loans to small businesses dried up as well. What has happened since? Well, on the other side of the Rotunda, in the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 5 months ago--5 months ago--passed her Heroes Act. It was $3 trillion--comparable to the first effort. She sent it to the Republican leader of the Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, for him to do his part. It is a bicameral legislature. His part would require coming up with an alternative and taking that to conference. Did he do that? No. He refused to acknowledge it and mocked day after day after day the efforts of Speaker Pelosi, questioning whether they were enough or sincere or too political, on and on and on. Did he pass his own measure? No. Then negotiations started between the President, his White House representatives, Speaker Pelosi, and Leader Schumer. They invited Senator McConnell, head of the Republicans in the Senate, and Kevin McCarthy, head of the Republicans in the House, to join in this bipartisan negotiation. McConnell and McCarthy declined. They would not even sit in the chairs during negotiations. In Senator McConnell's case, he simply came to the floor on a daily basis to mock every effort to respond to this COVID-19. Well, this is not a news bulletin, but we are 2 weeks away from the election, and guess what we are going to do on the floor of the Senate today. We are going to entertain a new idea by Senator McConnell of how to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. It turns out that it is a scant list of his priorities. Not surprisingly, the first priority is an issue he has called his redline on the floor over and over again--to give immunity from liability to businesses that fail to take the necessary steps to protect their employees and their customers from the spread of this deadly virus. That is his first priority. He has said that. Even before the first issue was raised as to what would be included in this, the first thing that Senator McConnell insisted on was protecting these businesses. How do the American people feel about that? Well, they are pretty clear. They believe if you put that immunity in place, that many businesses won't do what they need to do to protect their employees and customers. They worry that this gets them off the hook instead of putting the responsibility clearly on their shoulders. The good news is the overwhelming majority of businesses that I know are really trying to do the right thing. The bad news is they are not sure what that is. They hear about CDC guidelines that are ignored and mocked by the President, and they hear about the possibility of other standards that will be used. We have had hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee when a Texas businessman with a string of convenience stores, I think, came to us and in good faith said: I don't know where to turn for a standard of care. What am I supposed to do if I want to protect everyone coming into my store--employees and customers alike? I thought his statement was genuine. I really believed him, and I still do. But it is no excuse for what we have failed to do here. We have failed to come up with a national standard to protect people from the spread of this virus. Instead, Senator McConnell comes to the floor and says: If you can find any standard by any level of government, it is good enough. You are off the hook. That is no way to lead in the midst of a deadly pandemic. It is not the only issue. There are many others. Take a look at what is missing in Senator McConnell's proposal. There is no new funding when it comes to State and local governments. Remember the phrase ``defund the police''? You heard it from the rightwing about the leftwing of American politics wanting to defund the police. Well, Senator McConnell's action will defund police at State and local levels because these units of government won't have the resources to hire the policemen they need, the law enforcement officials they need, nor the firefighters, nor the teachers, nor the healthcare workers. But that is priority one for Senator McConnell: no help--no help for State and local governments for fear that you might actually send money to a Democratic mayor or a Democratic Governor. Spare me. That fire is not looking for party registration; it is looking for kindling to light the fire of infection. Now, on housing, well, how does the McConnell proposal deal with housing? No funding--no funding for housing or rental assistance. Now, on the stimulus checks--$1,200 stimulus checks. I listened to talk radio back in Chicago, and people are wondering: Is it possible we are going to see a $1,200 check? Well, you won't see it in Senator McConnell's proposal. There are no direct stimulus payments. How about unemployment benefits? The Federal unemployment benefits that expired on July 31 were $600 a week over the State amount, whatever it might be. Some people may have made more in the process than they did at work, but most were struggling to get by. If Members of the Senate had not been in touch with real America in a while, they may think that folks with these checks were binging on Netflix and eating chocolate-covered cherries night and day. That is not the case that I saw back in Illinois. People who had lost their jobs, even at the time they received these unemployment checks, were still struggling to pay for the mortgage, pay for the rent, pay for the car, keep up with the credit card bills, and put food on the table. So what does Senator McConnell propose that we do? He proposes we cut in half that amount--to $300 a week. I guess back in Kentucky it is a little bit different world, at least the way he sees it, but where I live, that means a pretty dramatic cut in survival pay--survival pay-- for people who have lost their jobs. On the healthcare side, this is the one that troubles me the most. Couldn't we all agree that we don't test enough for the COVID-19 virus in America? There are about 1 million people tested a day. Public health officials say: Well, you need at least 4 million. Others say: But if you truly want to reopen the economy and reopen the schools, you need 14 million a day. So you would guess that anything we pass would really zero in on testing to find out those who are positive, to do the contact tracing to warn those who may have been exposed, and to try to contain the virus. So let's take a look at what Senator McConnell thinks about the priority of testing. There is $16 billion for testing. How much did the Democrats--Nancy Pelosi--propose? She proposed $75 billion. And let me add that the McConnell bill provides no funding for hospitals or healthcare clinics and no dedicated funding for nursing homes, where we know the populations are so vulnerable. When it comes to the reality of what we are facing in this COVID-19 pandemic, the McConnell bill, which is coming before us this afternoon, is deficient in testing at a time when we are facing so many infections. On nutrition, the McConnell bill says that there will be no SNAP benefit increases or funding for food banks and, on education, provides $105 billion for education stabilization funds. Two-thirds of the K-12 funds will be held until schools provide a reopening plan and, of course, the voucher program. On postal assistance, the McConnell proposal alters the language in the original legislation to change the borrowing authority. The Postal Service is doing its best, and I thank the men and women who are engaged in it. We should do more than thank them. We ought to fund them and give them a helping hand. So what it boils down to is this: If this is a real pandemic, if we want to believe the public health experts--whom the President has called ``idiots,'' like Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been my friend for 20 years--if we want to believe the public health experts, we need to address this in a serious manner as we did last March in passing the CARES Act. This is not a time for people to cover their backsides politically. It is a time to remember that the American people need our help more than ever. A halfhearted and half-inspired effort to do this will not answer the call. We need to stand as a nation on a bipartisan basis. How does it start? It starts when Democrats and Republicans sit at the same table, which has not happened. It starts when we agree--both parties agree--on what the priorities must be, and it starts when we stop the speeches and start with real action to pass legislation like the CARES Act, which passed 96 to nothing on this floor. It is time to take this deadly virus and epidemic seriously. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has been said that the United States is like a brilliant tapestry woven from a dazzling array of colors and patterns into a unique whole. If that is true, then the contributions of Hispanics are surely among the largest and most vibrant swaths in our rich national tapestry, and Hispanic Heritage Month is a good time to reflect on those contributions. This celebration runs each year from mid-September to mid-October. The dates were chosen to coincide with the dates in which several Latin American nations--including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, and Chile--celebrate their own independence from colonial rule. This national celebration used to be just a week long, but in 1988, Congress wisely and unanimously voted to expand Hispanic Heritage Week to Hispanic Heritage Month. The legislation was sponsored by Congressman Esteban Torres and my friend and political mentor, Senator Paul Simon. It was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, a proud, conservative Republican who understood that America's heritage as a nation of immigrants is one of our greatest sources of strength--economically, politically, culturally and morally. The contributions and influence of Latinos on our Nation has grown dramatically in the three decades since the establishment of Hispanic Heritage Month. Today there are more than 60 million Latinos in the U.S. Illinois is proud to be home to one of the largest Latino populations in the country, including many people of Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Guatemalan heritage. Latinos and Latinas are leaders in every walk of life, including business, the arts, sciences, education, sports, entertainment, and public service. A ``wise Latina,'' Justice Sonia Sotomayor, now serves on the U.S. Supreme Court. Ellen Ochoa, an engineer and the first Latina astronaut, is now director of NASA's Johnson Space Center. Latinas are literally helping America reach for the stars. In my home State of Illinois, Dr. Juan Andrade, Jr., is the president of the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute, based in Chicago. He and his organization are doing critical work to educate and motivate Latinos to vote and to fill out the Census, ensuring that Latinos are seen and their voices heard. Alexis Esparza is president of Economic Strategies Development Corporation. For nearly half a century, his organization, ESDC, has worked in the Pilsen community of Chicago to preserve historic buildings, build affordable new housing, and help create new commercial and industrial economic development opportunities. They are part of a long and proud tradition of Hispanic men and women whose work has made America's economy more prosperous and fairer for all of us. Many Americans know the names Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta. In 1966, these two brave labor leaders helped organize farm workers in Delano, CA, to form the United Farm Workers of America. Standing together, backed by their union, the farm workers were able to strike for higher wages, safer working conditions, and protections for women farm workers from sexual violence. Far fewer people recognize the name Guadalupe Marshall. She is also a hero for workers' rights. Let me tell you about her. On Memorial Day 1937, 10 unarmed union demonstrators from Republic Steele were shot down by police in Chicago. Lupe Marshall, who had immigrated to America from Mexico when she was 10 years old, was one of the people attending that strike. She was a mother of three and a volunteer social worker at the Jane Addams Hull House. The ``Memorial Day Massacre'' is how many history books label the carnage at Republic Steele. Three weeks after the killings, Lupe Marshall travelled to Washington, DC, to testify before the Senate about what she had witnessed. She described placing herself on the front line when shots rang out and then turning to see many people lying face down on the ground. She ran, but she was clubbed in the head and arrested. Her courage helped to build support among the American people and in Congress for laws to help working people stand together for fair wages, safe working conditions, and civil rights. During this Hispanic Heritage Month, we are especially aware of the enormous contributions that Hispanic Americans continue to make to America's economy. Sadly, we know that this COVID-19 pandemic is taking a disproportionate toll on Black and Brown Americans. Nationwide, Latinos are being hospitalized with COVID-19 at more than 4\1/2\ times the rate of White people. In Illinois and several other States, Latinos have the highest COVID-19 infection rates of any ethnic group. COVID-19 is also threatening the livelihoods of Latinos throughout the US. Almost 60 percent of Latino households have experienced job loss or wage reductions during this pandemic. At the same time, our Nation is relying heavily on Latinos, both citizens and immigrants, to help steer us safely through this pandemic. Latinos are working on the frontlines of this pandemic as doctors, nurses, and home healthcare workers. They are also working around the clock, behind the scenes, to disinfect our workplaces, schools, stores, and health centers. Latino farm workers continue to work in the fields and in packing plants, harvesting, and preparing the food that keeps us fed. Despite the virus and, now, the thick smoke of wildfires blanketing much of the west coast, they remain on the job. Latinos are working as grocery clerks, teachers, postal employees, servicemembers, and other ``essential worker jobs.'' Many of these heroic essential workers are immigrants, and many are Dreamers. They continue to work and serve in their communities while their own status remains in limbo. Latino-owned businesses are one of the fastest growing segments of America's economy. Nationwide, nearly 1-in-4 newly created businesses today are Latino-owned. More than 4 million Latino-owned businesses provide jobs for 2.7 million workers. Together, these businesses pump over $700 billion into America's economy. In Illinois, 120,000 Latino- owned businesses generate $15 billion and create jobs for 100,000 workers. These passionate entrepreneurs are the heart and pride of their communities. I see them in communities all across Illinois. Let me tell you about some of them. In Chicagoland, Latino community and business leaders have created programs such as the Food for Hope Program and the Big Shoulders Fund to distribute free food to families who are hungry because of economic hardships related to the pandemic. Pedro Perez owns his own maintenance company, PCY General Services. He and his daughter are part of a team that diligently disinfects Esperanza Health Centers on the Southwest Side of Chicago to make sure that the space is safe for families and for the medical professionals who work there. What is even more remarkable is that he does all of this without charge. Why? Pedro says, with a smile, because ``it's his community.'' Every day, in every community in Illinois and every corner of America, you can find stories like theirs. The beauty and richness of the Latino community goes beyond food and traditions. At the heart of the Latino community is an exceptionally resilient spirit that has sustained them through history and is helping to sustain America today through the most severe health and economic crises most of us has ever experienced. I am honored to represent so many of these hard-working families in my State and look forward to see how they continue to inspire us to keep building a better America for everyone.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak to one of the most significant issues facing the security of our Nation. It is a question of domestic terrorism, specifically the threat of violent White supremacists. In Tuesday's Presidential debate, moderator Chris Wallace asked President Trump to condemn White supremacists and rightwing militia. President Trump refused. Instead, he replied--and I quote--``Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.'' The Proud Boys, a far-right group that promotes and engages in violence, viewed President Trump's words as a call to action. The group's leader Joe Biggs said he took the President's words as a directive to ``[F] . . . them up.'' I was appalled, but not surprised, by the President's words. He has a long history of inflammatory, racist remarks. Now, President Trump claims that violence is a ``left-wing problem, not a right-wing problem''--his words. Let me be clear. I join Vice President Biden in condemning all violence, but we know that White supremacists pose a great threat. An unclassified May 2017 FBI-DHS joint intelligence bulletin found that ``white supremacist extremism poses [a] persistent threat of lethal violence.'' This was a finding by the lead law enforcement agencies of the Trump administration. They went on to say that White supremacists were responsible for more homicides from 2000 to 2016 than any other domestic extremist movement. The director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, in response to a question I posed in the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, said that the majority of domestic terrorism arrests involved White supremacists. Now, for years, I have urged the Trump administration to respond to the ongoing threat of violent White supremacists and other far- rightwing extremists. Instead, they have repeatedly downplayed this very lethal and real threat. Attorney General Barr has never responded to the multiple letters I have sent, asking what the Department of Justice was doing to combat White supremacist violence. Unfortunately, as we have learned from former Trump administration officials themselves, the Trump administration has downplayed the threat of violent White supremacists. POLITICO recently reported that a draft homeland threat assessment report from DHS was edited to weaken language on the threat posed by violent White supremacists. And a DHS whistleblower alleged that DHS officials, including Ken Cuccinelli, requested the modification of the report to make the threat of White supremacists ``appear less severe'' and add information on violent leftwing groups. It is not enough to just stand here and condemn the President's remarks at the infamous debate. The American people sent us to Congress to act. There is something we can do now. There is something that we can do that will show we are prepared to respond to this threat to law and order, to this threat of violent White supremacists. I am the lead sponsor of the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, bipartisan legislation that would address the threat of violent White supremacists and other domestic terrorists. Our bill would establish offices to combat domestic terrorism at the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security. It would require these offices to regularly assess the domestic terrorism threat and focus their limited resources on the most significant threats. Critically, they would provide training resources to assist State, local, and Tribal law enforcement in addressing the domestic terrorism threat. The House companion to my bill was introduced by my colleague and friend Congressman Brad Schneider of Illinois. Just last week, the House of Representatives passed our bill on a unanimous voice vote. The Senate should pass it today. In a few moments, staff will provide me with the language to ask for a unanimous consent. I am waiting so there is an opportunity for both sides to discuss the procedure moving forward. In the meantime, several of my colleagues have asked to come to the floor and address the issue. I would yield to them for comment or question, through the Chair, with the hopes that when the procedural language arrives, I might be able to make the unanimous consent request.

Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Virginia.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Manchin's name be added as a cosponsor to S. 3190.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, yes, I am trying to make a political point, and it should be a bipartisan political point. It should be Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, as there was a unanimous voice vote in the House of Representatives on that same measure, and I am sorry my colleague from Wisconsin has left. The Senate's version of this bill has been pending for 9 months--for 9 months. The House has moved its version of it. It is a timely issue. Why waste a day in making America safer? Why not tell our law enforcement agencies: Now, roll up your sleeves. Go to work. Find the most dangerous things happening in this country, and stop them. We know one of them is White supremacists and their rightwing extremism. The President fumbled and couldn't come up with an answer 2 days ago. Today, sadly, from the Republican side, we get an objection to coming together on a bipartisan basis, as they did in the House, to address this very real issue. I am troubled by this. It is a sad moment. I do believe the Senator from Wisconsin and many others will say they are against extremism. They had a chance to prove it by passing a measure here and refused. I yield the floor

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, we are asking for unanimous consent to pass a bill that has passed the House of Representatives unanimously by a voice vote--unanimously--to empower and direct the law enforcement agencies of the United States to use their talents and resources to stop domestic terrorism, to stop the killing. We are identifying, in the course of it, the White supremacy and far-right extremism as one of the sources. Listen to what a Trump administration Department of Justice official wrote last year in the New York Times: White supremacy and far-right extremism are among the greatest domestic-security threats facing the United States. Regrettably, over the past 25 years, law enforcement at the Federal and State levels have been slow to respond. Killings committed by individuals in groups associated with far-right extremist groups have risen significantly. We are not manufacturing a crisis. The Trump administration Department of Justice official concurs with our actions that they are needed. How did I get involved in this? It goes back to 2012. As chairman of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, I held a hearing on the threat of violent rightwing extremism after a White supremacist murdered six worshippers at a Sikh gurdwara in Oak Creek, WI. Officials from the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and FBI--even at that time-- testified about the threat posed by violent domestic extremists. When President Trump was asked and challenged to condemn this violence, he refused. The question is whether the U.S. Senate, now given the same opportunity, will stand as the House of Representatives has on a unanimous, bipartisan basis to say ``enough'' when it comes to domestic terrorism inspired by White supremacy and rightwing extremism. Let me add that there is nothing in this bill to stop the efforts of those same agencies to police and stop leftwing extremism--all extremism. I have no problem in condemning all of it, but we are focusing on the one that is the most significant in the words of the Department of Justice. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5602 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.